--- In criticalmass2@yahoogroups.com, "Amigiac [London, UK]"
<cm@a...> wrote:
> Bubba, you really should re-think this to be more useful to
cyclists,
> how about advice for junctions/turning/changing lanes should we
have
> bell's air-horns water-pistols?


TF: There are plenty of other resources out there - such as
http://www.JohnForester.com - for those that are sufficiently
sophisticated to be interested in such spelling out of details. The
whole idea of the Triad, on the other hand, is to convey the
principles in a form that's sufficiently succinct to fit on a leaflet
that Joe Six-Pack is likely to read.

Furthermore, all of those details of which you speak (with the
exception of the water pistols) can also be found between the Triad's
lines by any intelligent person. Many of them - such as whether a
cyclist must have a noise-making device or whether his/her ability to
simply shout in emergency suffices as the equivalent of a car's horn -
are open to interpretation, and that's the beauty of the Triad; my
goal when cooking it up was to make it as uncontroversial as possible
to everybody except the "_Jym_"s of the world.

Now, about the water pistols: If you want to know what a really
deluxe (albeit illegal and untriadal) use of them is for a cyclist,
get some perspective by working at an auto-repair shop. One that
works on parts other than the propulsion system. But I like the
finish on my motor vehicles and am therefore not going to divulge the
secret on a C******* M*** list.


> Also the list is not specific to any one country, in the UK we have
to
> use rear lights,


TF: And in New York too, I understand. Or, regarding another part of
the Triad, some left-coast cyclists including some that could ride
rings around "_Jym_"/"Abe", keep on telling me that the law in
California doesn't define a bicycle as a vehicle. Well I've told them
that that's irrelevant to the accuracy of the Triad since any law
that doesn't define a bicycle as a vehicle is in _violation_ of the
Triad. Similarly, any local law that does or doesn't require a
taillight (an equipment item the importance of which is more open to
interpretation than, say, the fact that a bicycle is a vehicle),
doesn't change the fact emphasized in the Triad that a taillight is
both 1) recommended and 2) not a substitute for a headlight and rear
reflector.


> and the police wave us through red lights on CM.


TF: Very good. The Triad only says to wait at red lights at all
times "regardless of convenience", not "regardless of whether an
authorized marshal is waving you through". (Nor - to answer another
common critique of the Triad - does it say, "regardless of whether
the signal loop is detecting you".)

If your particular event is _generally_ being run as properly as you
make it sound like it is (e.g. with _authorized_ marshals, as opposed
to with plainclothes/spandex-clad road ragers calling
themselves "corkers"), then why don't you change the name of it to
something other than C******* M*** and thereby attract some real
cyclists to it?


> Your email does not go far enough to be useful and is misleading
for
> people outside of the US.


TF: Misleading? How? (I mean besides in the nitpicking way that I've
refuted above.) I was very careful to include you countries of left-
side drivers, for example, by having the Triad say "same direction as
the other vehicles on their side of the road" rather than "right
side".


> Oh also this whole CYCLISTS SHALL business is
> really condescending, you should rephrase it to sound less preachy.


TF: The Triad is equally preachy to motorists as to cyclists (a
feature that I suspect is more obvious in the paper version, which
has the two Codes of Conduct side by side rather than one above the
other; I don't know how to do that on the internet). But I wouldn't
mind having it appear less preachy period. So, what headings would
you suggest as alternatives to "CYCLISTS SHALL" and "MOTORISTS
SHALL"?


> Try to celebrate bikes, we don't need to fit in, we need to take
over,
> leave the cars for those who really need them.


TF: You mean like "_Jym_" when he borrows cars when _he_ "needs" them
according to _his_ criteria of "need" to get to the airport? His
confession of this can be found by looking deep enough in the CarFree
yahoo group archives, as can his subsequent unprovoked leap onto a
bandwagon of attacks on me for being allegedly less carfree than him
and his fellow not-having-any-farm-to-run carfree-list-incrowd
members.

Wake up and smell the coffee, ladies and gentlemen: Cyclists
_must_ "fit in" because C******* M*** _isn't_ _capable_ of "taking
over". I receive off-list fan mail, and it includes some from a
source on the left coast who informs me that the only way C*******
M*** even succeeds in taking over a few streets, for a few minutes
each, per month, in the CM capital of the world - San Fransisco! - is
by having many participants from the Thule car-top rack crowd (you
know, the yuppies who motor to the starts of bike rides - and I guess
they broke speed laws while doing it, based on what I've consistently
observed of their east-coast, League of American Liberal Bicyclists
counterparts) to participate in CM and thereby inflate CM's numbers!


- Tom Frost Jr.
Captain and Sponsor, The Last Bike Ride Out of the 20th Century




>
>
> bumpkinbubba wrote:
>
> >BICYCLISTS' RIGHTS TRIAD:
> >
> >
> >
> >